07-29-2009, 08:28 AM
(07-28-2009, 09:28 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: I hope I'm conveying my point here. I don't wish to explore that controversy. But the very fact that we could continue to debate it, that it is still a controversy among others (even though it may be settled in your mind), shows that it's not part of tangibly-proven consensual reality, or in the same league as, say, gravity or a round Earth!
The kind folks from the flat earth society would argue with you that the earth is indeed round... But like a pancake. So basically that too is a controversy and therefore debatable. There's also thousands of people who want to misguide others as soon as some believe them and some don't then this is a controversy, therefore debatable.
I mean to say that what one person considers tangibly proven another person considers hoax. We need a more objective standard of measuring the difference.
To me every argument is an argument. Either factual evidence or solid reasoning supports it or denies it. What people do with this is their choice. But I give it in spite of what they want to hear.
In my opinion, if you believe something that's fine. I know and respect various werewolves, vampires, a first world kid soldier, witches, wizards people who talk to their dead grandmother and what not. I even know people from other planets. I have no arguments that prove they're wrong. There is clearly some reason for them to believe this even if I don't understand it. So I choose to accept it for what it is.
If you don't want to listen to counter arguments as a rule you're essentially choosing to selectively deny verifiable facts and enter the domain where you base your life choices on personal preference rather than reality.
Selectively interpreting data does not make anyone right and is the primary cause for human engineered disasters literally people get killed because of selectively interpreted data.
You can consider this an ego thing of mine. "I want to be right and prove as many people as I can wrong." It's anyone's right to think that of me. And I admit to having an ego the size of a planet. I'd prefer to believe that if I accept someone's belief in a clearly wrong world view without telling them the counter arguments or suggesting alternatives. I'll be partly responsible when they make life choices based on the wrong information. I have seen people get hurt before. A belief is harmless until it causes severe psychological or physical distress to self or others.
"Homosexuality is a sin" is just an opinion, "Blacks are lazy" is just an opinion, "God wants me to kill non believers" is just an opinion. These beliefs are extreme examples of when it is obviously important to not accept opinions. Most cases don't matter much. Like the various other kin I know.
As a religious new age believer I went into skeptical forums on numerous occasions to try and figure out what of my beliefs is true and what is false. I will never use the explicit language they used to describe me. I've been used as a chew toy ridiculed virtually spat on and treated as the local idiot by all but the most polite. And I had to scratch a lot of my beliefs because of good arguments given to show me wrong (usually by the most polite). But the things I do continue to believe in have now been tried and tested. It's not just because someone told me or it felt good. I can supply you with the philosophical and scientific basis for my claims and defend against the most likely objections.
This is obviously not because the skeptics are the only true visionaries of the universe who know everything and agreed with me on some things. (Even if they sometimes like to believe this) But because they're ideally motivated and usually trained to shoot holes in my story. If they can show my story to be wrong, they get the ego boost, but I have learned the weakness in my theory. But if they can't then my story is more likely to be correct, I can successfully defend it philosophically and scientifically against the most critical opinions. I have on average learned more from critics than from fellow believers.
In the end we must follow our heart and our experience. But we must judge the thoughts we think reflect our heart and experience through the filter of a discerning mind. Often enough the heart is not saying what we think it's saying. It's just saying something we interpret as such.
Discernment is vital. Without it you're lost and easy prey to those who wish to manipulate you for your money your allegiance or their own power trips.